Polyamory is a form of relationship in which, where possible, valid and
worthwhile, longer-term intimate and sexual relationships are
maintained with multiple partners simultaneously and ethically;
arrangements that occur with the knowledge and consent of all
involved (Haritaworn et al 2006: 515). This is now a reasonably well
demarcated definition across both the academic literature and popular
books on the subject.

The best way to imagine polyamory is to view it as a phenomenon at
the
intersection of group marriage, loving multiple people and being open
to the
possibilities of what more than one simultaneous romantic relationship
may hold.

There is still inadequate empirical data on the percentage of
non-monogamous, and within that polyamorous, people in Western
societies, but there are some early indications to their prevalence
with some studies citing up to 15-28% of married couples having "and
understanding that allows nonmonogamy under some circumstances" with
percentages even higher among cohabiting couples, lesbian and gay male
couples (Blumstein and Schwartz cited in Weitzman 2006).1

There are two strong ways of defining polyamory: one as demarcation
from other modes of relating and the other in terms of its own strength
and values. If we go down the demarcation pathway we can see that
polyamory is different from other forms of non-monogamy. It is less
couple and event focused than swinging and more transparent,
intentional and complex than open relationships. It is much more
ethical and morally self-consistent than cheating (non-consensual
non-monogamy), even though cheating itself is arguably a very large
part of the practice and mythology of monogamy.2

The other way of demarcating polyamory is by asserting its own
characteristics that practitioners lay down as guiding principles for
their living: non-exclusivity in both love and sex, autonomy of
persons, transparency and honesty in dealing with each other, valuing
intimacy, caring, equality, and communication as the ultimate tool for
helping to put into practice all these principles. The '12 pillars of
polyamory' also include authenticity, choice, transparency, trust,
gender equality, honesty, open communication, being non-possessive,
consensual, accepting of self-determination, being sex positive and
understanding, and embracing compersion (Haslam 2008), the joy of
witnessing our loved ones' joy with others.3

These two different definitions show that polyamory is a special
liminal
space within alternative forms of sexuality and is at the crossroads of
several progressive social movements (Haritaworn et al 2006: 57) and in
fact is building on each: feminism, gay and lesbian rights, bisexual
movement and BDSM. 'Polyamory has arisen from the confluence of a
number of sexually emancipatory discourses' (Haritaworn et al 2006:
518) and would probably not be possible without these precedents.
Assertion-style definition shows that polyamory needs to be understood
on its own terms and studied empirically from within and cannot be
fully captured by positioning it in relation to other ways of forming
relationships. This becomes especially important when we look at its
representation later where polyamory is mistakenly derived from
monogamy and cheating. Polyamory is both liminal
(peripheral/relational) and self-defining which brings up a special
challenge for both mainstream culture and polyamory: should it be
extrapolated from monogamy and presented in a way that is
comprehensible for the background culture, risking misunderstanding but
perhaps gaining gradual acceptance; or should it be described as a
self-enclosing relationship phenomenon achieving better self-definition
but risking lack of exposure and chance for wider acceptance?

Widespread acceptance may not depend on scholarly interest, but it
does
show the maturing of polyamory as a research topic. Its academic
literature is slowly gathering pace since the early 1990s. In 1995 a
book called 'Breaking the Barriers to Desire — New Approaches to
Multiple Relationships' (Lano and Parry (eds) 1995) appeared and was
one of the first collections of essays on non-monogamy. At this point
writers were still grappling with the early issues of a minority
movement: self-definition, consistent vocabulary and coming to a more
elaborate self-understanding that resists pathologization. In 2006
editors of a special issue of the Sexualities journal remarked that
only a few years before there was little in the way of comprehensive
academic studies and the literature up to that point comprised
histories, memoirs and advice books (Haritaworn et al 2006: 517). In
2010 a comprehensive academic collection was published (Barker and
Langdridge 2010) that showcased the burgeoning literature on
non-monogamies: historical and popular culture perspectives, types of
non-monogamy, intersection with race, class and disability, literature
on parenting and families and psychotherapy. Currently there are
numerous studies underway from a variety of disciplines probing more
deeply into polyamory (Anita Wagner 2008a) and there is a special
organisation for the academic study and dissemination of research
results on alternative sexualities, including polyamory (CARAS 2011).

The polyamory movement itself is growing steadily. The Australian
polyamory community has regular social and community meetings in at
least three capital cities and a number of regional centres. They are
represented in the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras and regularly
volunteer for media appearances. Internationally poly communities are
active in the US, Canada and Europe, with smaller communities in South
Africa and Japan. In the US there are dozens of regional, state and
national organisations that hold annual retreats and community
festivals.4 Internationally there are polyamomrous symbols and a
burgeoning specialist vocabulary.5

The popular literature comprises a dozen or so non-fiction books,
most
of them are in the advice or memoir category, and there is anecdotal
evidence of polyamory related fiction.

Polyamorists have appeared on many talk shows on television in a
number
of countries, recently in Germany (MacRobert 2011a) and Australia (SBS
2011). There are many other developments that are a manifestation of
polyamorists reaching out through various media to portray themselves:
poly-flavoured reality tv, theatre plays, community produced web series
and documentaries, weekly podcasts, long-standing reputable blogs,
online community hubs, quality fora etc. There is even a media training
organisation specifically for polyamorists to help them get their
message out.6

Together all these organisations, groups and programs are developing
an
emancipatory discourse on multiple loving, on life beyond compulsory
monogamy and heterosexuality, on how to nurture complex non-traditional
relationships that defy existing norms, and on forming poly families
and bringing up children in a non-traditional context.

Polyamorists do not live a monolithic lifestyle; they represent an
amazing diversity of sexualities and ways of living. However there are
a number of basic patterns of relationship they exhibit: Vs (two people
pivoting on one without having a direct romantic relationship between
them), triads (three people together), nodes/clusters and tribes.
Bisexuality and BDSM are very common and there are 'open' and 'closed'
clusters or families, with the latter called polyfidelity. Many
community leaders are female which defies expectations that polyamory
is a male-centred culture. Larger polyamorous communities often have
access to alternative therapists and psychologists who specialise in
polyamorous clients.

Interest in polyamory from outside the community has also been
steadily
growing. The amount of direct media attention across all segments is
now considerable, therefore a complete exhaustive study would be
improbable. In my research I have delved into newspaper and magazine
articles from Australia, The United States of America, Canada and the
UK. I have also sampled radio and television, and included articles
that were responding to representations, in effect capturing the
'reverberations' of polyamory related issues in the media. In some
cases the line is blurred between representation and response when the
blogosphere lights up around a particular incidence. In such cases I
have collected all the responses relating to the original articles. It
was helpful that most articles were published after 2006 and therefore
can be traced online with ease.

Polyamory as titillating infidelity: monogamous anxieties

The vast majority of mainstream articles that mention polyamory are
actually focussed on infidelity/cheating and consider polyamory both an
extension of the idea of 'getting some on the side' and a frightening
scenario to which the solution is monogamy.

I want to start the discussion on media representations of polyamory
with the 'middle option', where polyamory is both titillating and
unacceptable, because this representation betrays some deep cultural
anxieties about monogamy itself and shows why polyamory is still not
presented and accepted as a mainstream option.

Titillating representations of polyamory can most commonly be found
in
the tabloid media. Titillating articles rarely display a deeper
interest in polyamory or other forms of ethical non-monogamy or
misunderstand their rationale and inner logic. These articles tend to
open with the supposedly tantalising idea of cheating as an option
mimicking ethical non-monogamy, and almost inevitably end with a firm
conclusion in which monogamy is the potential solution to any
relationship problem or deeper questioning about sexuality and
relationships.

These articles are not particularly interested in representing
polyamory on its own terms because they are preoccupied with the
monogamy/cheating dynamic instead. As such they have a lot more to say
about the anxieties of the monogamous mainstream than about ethical
forms of non-monogamy. Monogamy and cheating are portrayed in the
mainstream media as logical opposites, in which one is good and the
other is bad. Staying inside this black-and-white world leaves little
room for comprehending ethical non-monogamy as it simply does not fit
into the traditional mono-centric assumptions that operate underneath
the narrative.

Pepper Mint (2004) beautifully explains how the power dynamics of
cheating play out in mainstream culture. He argues that rampant scorn
of cheating is the everyday tool for reinforcing monogamy and that
cheating and monogamy are interdependent as each position in this
system provides for scripted opportunities for personal power. What is
at operation in this system is the tools for cultural comformity that
attempt to both bring cheaters back into monogamy and portray polyamory
(and bisexuality) as unacceptable options on the grounds of their
commonalities with cheating.

Titillating articles tend to imply that polyamory and cheating are
bedfellows: they are both logical opposites to monogamy, both provide
titillating alternatives for 'philanderers', and both are problematic
and need to find resolution in returning to the cultural norm. But this
is a false duality as monogamy needs cheating in order to reinforce its
cultural dominance and to provide a predictable counterpoint that can
be demonized in the service of comformity. Polyamory, on the other
hand, is neither a scripted extension of monogamy, nor the counterpoint
that reinforces the duality: it is an alternative system of having
multiple consensual relationships based on three-person structures that
are not modelled on cheating. The very logic of titillating articles
rests on the notion that all ambiguous behaviour can be relegated to a
negative category, that all behaviour that is not monogamy is
automatically cheating (Pepper Mint 2004: 9). Polyamory is in fact a
radical break with the assumptions of the monogamous framework and this
is why mainstream articles needs to either misunderstand it or make it
synonymous with cheating, so it can be relegated to the unacceptable
category.

Titillating articles tend to portray polyamory as something more
salacious, forbidden or desirable than it actually is in order to
present the reader with voyeurism. Mistaken assumptions about polyamory
are common: that polyamory is depraved and always involves
promiscuity, or that polyamorous people lack self-esteem or are sex
addicts. Sometimes polyamory is described as a valid minority 'taste'
that nevertheless cannot be widely recommended. There are also
assumptions about human relations, emotions and desire: that jealousy
is a serious impediment to the viability of ethical non-monogamy, that
there is only a certain amount of romantic love to go around (this is
sometimes called the starvation economy of love) and that sexual desire
is a destructive force in people's lives unless it is strictly
controlled and channelled in prescribed ways. Polyamory is not fully
acceptable for several reasons: on moral and ethical grounds, in terms
of the transgressive nature of the practice and because it supposedly
brings up unmanageable issues. Yet, it seems irresistible to engage
with the idea of 'expanding on fidelity'.

The interesting dynamic with the titillating articles is that
polyamory
is only really titillating if a large enough percentage of monogamous
people reading the articles are fascinated by the idea of non-monogamy.
There are lots of different studies that show varying degrees of
cheating and infidelity in monogamous couples. Considering the devilish
difficulties in defining, let alone empirically measuring such
behaviour, it is not surprising that the figures vary wildly, however
they are generally still indicative: depending on the study, the
incidence of infidelity stands at 25-70% of long-term self-defined
monogamous heterosexual couples (Frank and DeLamater 2010: 11-12) and
there are probably more who toy with the idea at some point. These
people, and their suspecting or anxious partners are the most likely
readers for this kind of mainstream article.

There is a growing private investigation business where spouses hire
detectives to stalk their partners and find evidence of cheating or
lack thereof. This last development is especially a good indicator of
the underlying tensions within monogamous relationships and the obvious
interest in infidelity issues is seized on by mainstream media eager to
attract attention based on monogamous anxieties. The constant
preoccupation with cheating and cheaters in the popular media is a
strong sign that monogamy is being threatened by its own anxieties,
which, in turn, are used to reinforce its dominance. The unacceptance
of polyamory and its branding as a practice synonymous with cheating
continues to reinforce the standard norms of exclusivity and fidelity
to one partner.

Polyamory as unacceptable

Some of these titillating articles will clearly aim to demonstrate
how
polyamory is not an acceptable or desirable choice, but they usually
sustain a level of interest or preoccupation with alternatives to
monogamy, even if they conflate polyamory with cheating. These articles
are clearly beaten in their pursuit of painting polyamory as
unacceptable by outright conservative articles that go several steps
further as they attempt to demonise polyamory.

Many of these are so furious in their opposition that they fail to
conceptually separate out different forms of non-monogamy (Muehlenberg
2008). For some, polyamory is not only unacceptable but a threat to the
moral
social order of families. Bill Muehlenberg, a conservative commentator,
evokes the scary image of polyamory as the morally bankrupt option that
masquarades as progress:

And there seems to be endless conferences, meetings and support
groups out there devoted to this growing movement. There are even entire TV
series devoted to this, such as the US-made Big Love, which our own SBS
in Australia is happy to run prime time on Saturday nights. Sadly, this is not merely the stuff of hormonally-charged
fruitcakes.

There are plenty of "serious" academic, educational, political and
legal groups pushing this stuff as well.

All of this may have been unthinkable just a few short decades ago,
but
the times they are a changin'. But the interesting thing about all this
is how it is simply the logical extension of both the sexual
revolution, and the attempt to redefine marriage and family out of
existence.

Polyamory is simply the next step along the slippery slope that
began
around about the 1960s. When the institutions of marriage and family
were attacked by the sexual libertines and social engineers back then,
they knew that the best way to destroy them was to radically redefine
them. The idea was that any and all sexual relationships were as good
as another (Muehlenberg 2008: 2).

The famous slippery slope argument is thus evoked. Muehlenberg
asserts
that the demise of monogamy started with cohabitation, followed by gay
rights and now polyamory. All of these developments are clearly
unacceptable as they all involve some degree of promiscuity or sexual
relations outside the confines of monogamous heterosexual marriages and
therefore threaten the institution of marriage. Polyamorous ideals of
love, consent and respect are labelled as parts of a radical rhetoric
that aims to destroy the family. Finally he says "[t]he answer to all
these weird and wild sexual combinations and permutations is to return
to the age-old understanding of what real marriage is all about. Until
then, the slope will only get more slippery" (ibid.).

International articles present similar hostility. Stanley Kurtz
(2005)
from the conservative Hudson Institute is able to differentiate between
polyamory and polygamy but argues that they are effectively one and the
same. Kurtz cautions that the combined efforts of polyamory and
polygamy are riding on the wave of same-sex marriage and the growing
acceptance of bisexuality in order to push for the legal acceptance of
group marriage. Again, polyamory is depicted as the ultimate challenge
to 'traditional families':

[T]he culture of marriage will be battered for years by the
debate. Just as we're now continually
reminded that not all married couples have children, we'll
someday be endlessly told that not all marriages are monogamous (nor
all monogamists married). For a second time, the fuzziness and
imperfection found in every real-world social institution will be
contorted into a rationale for reforming marriage out of existence
(Kurtz 2005: 15).

The conservative fear is that polyamorists will be successful at
pushing for multi-partner marriage and that this will effectively
abolish the institution of marrige, which assumes that granting rights
to others who want different configurations of marriage will somehow
decrease the validity and value of 2-person heterosexual traditional
marriages.

William Duncan (2010) in The American Spectator also cautions about
Canadian developments towards advancing multi-person marriages. Duncan
maintains there is no evidence that polyamory is not harmful to
children, yet he also asserts that any future social scientific study
into this matter would most likely be flawed and therefore should be
ignored. His view is that polyamory is even more harmful than polygamy
because the latter may at least be orderly while the former is sheer
chaos, and both of them 'promote infidelity' and therefore will
undoubtedly harm children.

Patrick Fagan (2010) in a Touchstone article (a Christian magazine)
articulates the same concerns and provides further judgments based on
moral assumptions. According to Fagan polyamorists seek freedom from
all constraints in order to live a promiscious life, they are
anti-religious, they obey no moral order or ethical standard, suscribe
to relativism, follow an irresponsible hedonistic path in which
children are ignored, are disorderly, chaotic and inscrutable, they
hold nothing sacred and sacrifise all traditional morals on the altar
of pleasure. They are also 'polymorphously perverse', their lifestyle
caves in to aggressive destructive male desires (sexual or otherwise),
they confuse gender roles, and foster a sterile culture (Fagan 2010).

There are many more such publications that tend to come from a
religious conservative angle and describe polyamory as cleary
unacceptable on the grounds of morality and potential harm to
traditional marriages and children. This hostile discourse views
polyamory as threatening to the very social fabric of life and paints a
picture in which polyamory inevitably leads to unacceptable outcomes
for everyone. This conservative, mostly Christian, discourse shows deep
cultural anxieties around multi-partnering and sees any deviation from
the traditional marriage as morally flawed. It clearly rejects
polyamory as having any merit or legitimacy on the basis of a
moralistic argument that appeals to conservative notions of what 'true
human nature' supposed to represent.

Positive representations

There are many positive representations of polyamory in the media,
especially in the last 4-5 years. One sign of an unwavering interest
is that the Australian polyamory community receives numerous
invitations each year to participate in programs and articles, and this
interest has been sustained for several years now.

Positive representations could be divided into several types:
articles
that polyamory community members write themselves (Cobalt 2011, Croydon
2011), ones that are written about them as features in various
newspapers and magazines (Bennett 2009, Brown 2008, Miller 2010,
Smithies and MacDougall 2009), and thoroughly researched articles that
do not directly involve polyamorous laypeople in the making of their
stories and provide in-depth analysis such as New Scientist (Newitz
2006), Wired (Lynn 2008), and The New York Times (Oppenheimer 2011,
Williams 2008).

Thanks to these positive representations, polyamory is better
understood
than ever. Many newspapers and magazines in English speaking liberal
democracies have shown a genuine interest in presenting polyamory in
its complexity by delving in to explore a topic that can be difficult,
and presenting polyamorists in ways they themselves can accept. Most of
these media outlets are non-tabloid in nature and their articles on
polyamory share some basic characteristics: they tend to explore
polyamory in depth, they make a concerted effort at understanding its
intricacies such as not conflating it with cheating or polygamy, and
generally present polyamory in an acceptable light. These positive
representations, however, are not necessarily devoid of critical
investigation and questions from a monogamous point of view are
addressed in a robust way. There is a considerable amount of healthy
debate which adds to a more balanced and nuanced representation.

A case in point is Emma Jane (2010) who in The Australian described
the
harmonious lives of a female-male-female triad who are awaiting the
birth of their baby, have received disapproval and confusion from
friends and community and do their best to carry on with their lives as
best they can. They aren't held up as perfect examples of an
alternative family, but as an honest non-traditional arrangement in
which they tackle problems as they arise. Jane is both sympathetic and
represents the triad's situation in a positive light:

Given the ubiquity of cheating spouses (there are now commercial
websites devoted to facilitating marital infidelity), it seems grossly
hypocritical to judge those who are open and ethical about having more
than one lover.

But Mari, Sara and David endure way more than their fair share of
rude
and weird reactions. Their jog-as-a-family neighbours won't wave back
to them and Sara's mum thinks she is some kind of insatiable,
nymphomaniac adulteress.

"But dammit, we're not freaks!" Sara says. "We're not hurting anyone.
And we have three earners, three minds to think through situations and
now three people to care for a baby."

And as they count down the days until the birth of little Kate next
month, they are convinced that any stigma their daughter faces in the
community will be well and truly countered by the 50 per cent increase
in the usual loving parenthood quotient she will have at home. (Emma
Jane 2010: 2-3)

Polyamory is not represented as a mainstream choice here, in fact it
is
displayed as a marginal alternative to monogamy, yet the overall
representation is both shaded and complex, allowing for the
self-described polyamorous story to emerge. Jane avoids direct
comparisons with monogamy and steers clear of cultural conformity by
allowing her triad to introduce themselves on their terms instead of
collapsing their story back into monogamy. Articles such as Jane's are
as close to a mainstream acceptance of polyamory as media
representations get in the new millennium.

Some North American representations, especially in the Boston Globe,
Newsweek and The New York Times, tend to be particularly detailed,
complex and favourable. Instead of heterosexual monogamous anxieties
lurking behind negative assumptions about non-monogamy, here we find a
more ready approach to confront difficult questions about marriage and
families, fidelity and desires, romantic ideals and their feasibility
and desirability, and humanity's changing self-understanding in
relation to sex and relationships. The explicit assumption is that such
an evolving self-understanding will inevitably involve changing
cultural assumptions about monogamy and a deliberate opening, at least
for some, towards new types of non-monogamy.

But what matters is that neither monogamy nor polygamy is
humankind's
sole natural state. "One size never fits all, and it isn't just
dividing between men and women and gay and straight," she said. "Monoga
my is not natural, nonmonogamy is not natural. Variation is what's
natural." […]

Judith Stacey, a New York University sociologist who researched gay
men's romantic arrangements for her book "Unhitched," [says] "I believe
monogamy is actually crucial for some couples and totally irrelevant
for others." That does not mean that nonmonogamous couples are free to
do as they please. Creating nonmonogamy that strengthens rather than
corrodes a marriage is surely as much work as monogamy. Couples should
make vows and honor them. Not all good relationships require monogamy,
but they all require what she calls integrity" (Oppenheimer 2011: 6)

These positive representations of polyamory are attempting to shift
public discussions from compulsory monogamy to a more open-ended view
that includes the possibility of new forms of consensual non-monogamy
that manage to integrate commitment and sexual freedom. From these
representations new narratives are born on how relationships can be
negotiated beyond the bounds of traditional pair-bonding.

Is poly the new gay? Legal challenges and future dilemmas

Kirkman (2010), Melloy (2010) and others have drawn parallels
between
the gay and lesbian movement and that of polyamory. There are certainly
notable similarities as well as differences. Both are important to note
as each could become either a hindrance or an advantage in the fight
for legal rights. The gay and lesbian movement has been fighting for
decades against discrimination and continues to lobby for legal
equality, with notable advances that vary greatly between liberal
democracies. Part of this continued fight is the same-sex marriage
debate that may or may not become extended to eventually include
polyamory and a potential push towards the recognition of multi-partner
unions.

Firstly, there are definitely some similarities. Gays and lesbians
have
experienced oppression, stigma and discrimination and polyamorous
people are going through these experiences themselves. Considering that
potentially a large percentage (33-54%) of polyamorous people are also
gay, lesbian or bisexual (Page 2004 cited in Weitzman 2006), the
overlaps are even more considerable.

The arguments against GLBT people and polyamorists have common
elements: both are often opposed on the basis of morality, both are
regularly defined as unnatural 'lifestyles' standing against the
traditional social order, and both have been accused of being
detrimental to children and families (and in both cases the
counter-arguments have been made and empirical evidence has been
collected to the contrary). Compulsory heterosexual monogamy clashes
with both positions establishing parallels between the gay and lesbian
movements and polyamory based on oppression and exclusion from the
mainstream.

The eventual fight to abolish discrimination towards polyamorists
may
also be similar. There is no legal protection against discrimination on
the basis of a polyamorous life in Australia or elsewhere, however
there is ample evidence of a growing movement against legal
discrimination and towards recognition which involve a variety of
strategies.

There are legal investigations aiming to include polyamory under
sexual
preferences in order to provide a basis for a legal fight against
discrimination (Tweedy 2010). Recently there was a landmark
constitutional case in Canada that significantly raised the profile of
polyamory. In this case anti-polygamy laws were challenged by the
Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association representing five polyamorous
families in order to avert potential criminalisation of polyamorists
(MacRobert 2011b). The original law was aimed against religious Mormon
polygyny (one husband, two or more wives) and child abuse in such sects
in British Columbia. Although this fight is specifically against the
criminalisation of polyamorists, not the extension of marriage rights
yet, it is considered to be the most high profile legal action by
polyamorists anywhere in the world, in a country where same-sex
marriage rights have already been won. In California a polyamorous quad
(four people in group marriage) has taken a different route; they have
signed legal documents to testify that they are all legal spouses and
have taken up one family name. They are hoping to set a legal and moral
precedent (Antonowicz 2011). There are news of many more undocumented
cases circulating amongst community members about polyamorists, in
Australia and abroad, who have lost jobs and rental accommodation,
faced child custody battles and discrimination at work or withstood
shame and ostracisim not unlike those in the gay movement before them.

However the differences between the gay and lesbian movement and the
polyamory one are also considerable. Polyamory is not currently a
sexual orientation in law, it resists neat categorisation and defies
appropriation by the mainstream culture because it challenges not one
but several deeply held social conventions: sexual and romantic
exclusivity, two people forming a couple, and the general norms and
assumptions that govern two-person relationships. Polyamory is more than
shared sexual adventures beyond the existing couple's boundaries
(swinging) and is different from having the same gendered partner
(gay/lesbian). The former does not explicitly challenge the two-person
definition of coupledom, while the latter formally aims to stay within
those same bounds but with a same-sex partner. Polyamory, however,
creates completely unique norms and narratives that defy accommodation
and are deeply challenging to the couple-centric paradigm that
underpins all other recognised relationship forms.

Gay and lesbian culture too has unacceptable elements that defy
appropriation, yet after more than forty years of struggle being gay or
lesbian has become much more acceptable and gay culture has a two-person
narrative that neatly fits mainstream understanding of relationships.
The white picket fence narrative of monogamy, respectable occupations
and desire for raising children, maps onto compulsory monogamy. Many
gay and lesbian couples do not fit this narrative and resent the
assumptions of cultural conformity, yet it is this version of a
monogamous gay life that is on the verge of acceptance through same-sex
marriage. Polyamorists, on the other hand, face a much more difficult
battle to find a version of their narrative that can be offered up to
the mainstream as a symbolic representation of its compatibility with
wider societal values. The most likely candidate for acceptance might
be the polyfidelitious triad in which three people are sexually and
romantically exclusive with each other. Polyfidelity may be able to
acquire the same status as the gay and lesbian white picket fence
family, by simply boosting the number of individuals in a family from
two to three in relation to a traditional couple. However, other forms
of polyamory, and more radical forms of gay and lesbian life, may
always defy 'mainstreaming' and never become fully acceptable. They may
face the same battles and dilemmas in the long run.

Anita Wagner, a well known polyamory community organiser, writer and
blogger from the USA, puts it this way during a New York Pride Rally:

"The mainstreaming of polyamory is well under way, and as community organizers and advocates it is our duty to be prepared to continue
to
effectively participate in the ongoing public dialogue about
alternatives to monogamy in a way that debunks misconceptions and helps
mainstreamers understand that they do indeed have options as to how
they arrange their intimate relationships. This means that we must
present ourselves and our message in a way that helps them relate to
us. This means becoming comfortable with putting a less radical face on
polyamory so as not to distract the listener from the message. (Wagner,
2008b)"

'Mainstreaming' poses a great dilemma for both gay and lesbian
couples
and to polyamorists: should they fight for acceptance at the expence of
being accepted only on the basis of a more culturally conformist
outlook, or should they resist appropriation at such an unacceptable
price to both identity and practice and risk further dicrimination and
invisibility? Polyamory, by its very nature, is perhaps too nebulous,
complex and diverse to be accommodated and accepted fully on its own
terms and will remain on the outside culturally, sharing a space with
those in the GLBT community who resist or can never aspire to be in the
mainstream. Polyamory may continue to frustrate categorisation,
control, containment and even comprehension, and as such it may never
achieve a wider acceptance. In an alternative scenario polyamorists
will find a way legally and culturally to break through on the edges
and attain the visibility and acceptance they seek. However, they will
have to contend with the dilemma that mainstream acceptance may
ultimately pose and decide if the price is worth paying.

Conclusions

As the polyamory movement continues to develop, so too, does its media representation. Conservative views of complete
rejection betray deep anxieties about the future of relationships and
condemn polyamory on moralistic grounds. Titillating representations
are only able to superficially grapple with the complexities of
polyamory. They continue to retreat into the false duality of the
cheating/monogamy system in their attempt at understanding polyamory's
challenge to the cultural conformity of monogamy. Positive
representations show the possibility of understanding polyamory on its
own terms without fear for other relationship forms. Finally the gay
and lesbian movement and polyamory share the source of their oppression
but experience discrimination on a different basis. Both face the
dilemmas that 'maistreaming' may pose and have to negotiate the terms
of their potential acceptance.

Ritchie, A. and Barker, M. (2006) ""There Aren't Words for What We
Do
or How We Feel So We Have To Make Them Up": Constructing Polyamorous Languages
in
a Culture of Compulsory Monogamy" in Sexualities, Vol 9, No 5: 584-601

1 Weitzman 2006, pages 141-2: "Page (2004) found that 33% of her
bisexual sample
of 217 participants were involved in a polyamorous relationship, and
54% considered this type of relationship ideal. West (1996) reported
that 20% of her lesbian respondents were polyamorous, while Blumstein
and Schwartz (1983) found that 28% of the lesbian couples in their
sample were. Blumstein and Schwartz found that 65% of the gay male
couples in their study were polyamorous, and that 15-28% of their
heterosexual couples had "an understanding that allows nonmonogamy
under some circumstances" (p.312)".

2 Pepper Mint (2004) shows
how cheating and monogamy are not polar opposites but actually the two
sides of the same monogamy coin. Cheating is not only commonplace and
expected but is punished and thereby it is also a spectacle that
reinforces the norms of monogamy. In this regard monogamy and cheating
are a false dichotomy. A more meaningful distinction would be between
monogamy and types of ethical consensual non-monogamy such as polyamory.

3 Compersion and frubble both signify the same meaning: the joy
experienced when witnessing our
loved ones' pleasure and joy with someone else or with each other, a
pleasure that speaks of altruism and is sometimes called the 'opposite
of jealousy'. Compersion is a wonderful example of how polyamorists are
inventing a new vocabulary to describe their own unique experience.

5 These include the previously mention 'compersion' and 'frubble',
also 'metamour' which
comes from 'meta' and 'amour' referring to a person's partner's
partner(s) with whom the original person is not in direct romantic
relationship.

6 The Polyamory Media
Association is a non-profit organisation bringing together media and
public speaking professionals who freely train polyamorists in talking
to the media, helps them get their message across and helps them become
more media savvy.

Scan is a project of the Media Department @ Macquarie University, Sydney